It’s been nearly a year since Russia has invaded Ukraine. On the yearly anniversary, let’s examine what are the secondary benefits of keeping this war going.
In this article, as in all my articles, I will adopt a “birds eye” view of things, avoiding taking sides, being sucked into (geo)political considerations, as this is one of the intended side-effects: a further polarisation of our world, which has certain secondary benefits.
What are secondary benefits? In the medical field, secondary benefits relate to patients clinging on to a problem or symptom because of a positive side-effect of such a symptom. For instance, if a certain symptom enables them to receive more care from their entourage, a patient may want to keep that symptom from disappearing.
In this instance, I will examine what are the secondary benefits of the Russia-Ukraine war, or in other words, the “positive” effects of keeping the war going.
Without further adieu, the secondary benefits are actually the exact same for both Russia (and its informal allies) and the “West”: delaying the evolution of their respective political/economic systems.
War time is never a good time for “progressive” policies. It is a time where citizens are expected to grit their teeth, rally behind their respective governments, and do what’s necessary to support the war effort.
On the other hand, the times which follow a crisis have lead to major breakthroughs in the evolution of political and economic systems. For instance, the “roaring 30s”, which followed directly after World War II, were a time of great progress on a number of social, economic and political fronts. Worker unions were very strong, and a number of key social and labour laws were passed including progress on working time, minimum wage, worker’s rights, labour contracts, pensions, healthcare insurance and more. All of this, in part, as a kind of “thank you” political gesture for the effort citizens put in fighting off the “enemy”.
There is therefore an inherent interest in keeping entire nations in a permanent “crisis” mode, and use these times of crisis as an excuse to kick the can down the road in terms of all sorts of asks for progress and change from citizens.
In the case of the “West”, which are overwhelmingly at the stage of representative democracy, it is clear that such a governance model is in crisis. In Europe, participation in elections has steadily declined, and the political landscapes have become more radical and polarised. There is a kind of “democratic fatigue” setting in. A rehashing of old political feuds (anti-pro-abortion) and a staggeringly slow legislative process when compared to the speed at which our societies advance. At the same time, there is an effervescence in community lead governance, a form of “direct democracy” of small communities organising, sometimes in attempts at self-governance. In France, for instance, the emergence of the “Zad” (Zone à défendre) in opposition to the construction of an airport in Notre-Dame-des-Landes, which lead to a major confrontation with public authorities. The emergence of blockchain technology is also a sign that self-governance is on the rise, as a possible evolution transcending representative democracy as a governance model. Blockchain technology enables people to exchange value (money) without going through the current centralized financial institutions. It also brings about tools for self-governance via DAOs (decentralized autonomous organisations).
Thus maintaining all of the western countries, and by extension, their citizenry, in a state of crisis (notably through war), hampers, delays and slows all progress in developing alternative governance structures and initiatives which may come to heads with the current representative democracy governance structure. While citizens fear for their lives and livelihoods, they will be less inclined to engage in experimental governance models or take risks with trying out new revolutionary decentralized payments systems. In periods of fear, the natural instinct is to cling on to what’s “tried and true”, even if these old systems are under severe strain. As most economists will tell you, the financial system has been on life support ever since the 2008 financial crisis. If people started to experiment with alternative means of payments, that might just be the straw that would break the camel’s back.
In the case of Russia and its informal allies, maintaining these countries in a state of crisis allows the autocrats in power (Putin and his autocrat friends) to quash any transition towards representative democracy (the next natural evolutionary step for these countries). The younger generations in many of these countries are no longer unconditional fanboys and fangirls of their pater familias dictator. Their aspirations are turned towards the western model of representative democracy. What better excuse to “legitimately” delay any progress in that direction than a good old-fashioned war.
Thus both the “West” and Russia&Co benefit greatly from the war in keeping the status quo about their respective political regimes, distracting citizens from the skeletons in their closets and keeping them from looking to the future. This war isn’t a war of Russia against the West or vice versa. It is a (probably unconscious) ploy to delay progress and change for both political systems. It is a conservative war on both sides. And obviously, neither side should win, or rather, both sides should lose, and their respective citizens should win.
In other words, if the “West” wins, then Putin will lose power, but the representative democracy put in place will be a joke. It will most likely be a puppet democracy which bends the knee to the IMF and to global financial capitalism, rather than a true representative democracy looking after the interests of its people (much like we saw in Greece during the EU debt crisis in 2010). The “West” will then be able to consolidate the power of the current representative democracy model and recoup its “investment” by pillaging Ukraine’s resources with juicy reconstruction contracts and exploitation of various raw materials, agricultural land etc.
If Russia wins, then Putin will remain in power, consolidate his position, while the “West” will spiral out of control, the EU would likely break apart, as would the US, due to the immense social, political and economic tensions that can no longer be contained, given the net “loss” that the war would have cost, the sky rocketing levels of debt, and the loss of power of current western institutions like the IMF.
If both lose, then perhaps the world can resume its natural evolutionary drive. Everything evolves, everything changes: that is the only eternal truth. Putin would then step down and let his country transition towards a real representative democracy, while the “West” would start transitioning out of centralized institutions and into a network of self-governed communities, supporting citizen-lead initiatives, instituting parliaments where the representatives are selected by lot among the citizens, perhaps revisiting the works of political scientist Benjamin Barber and his idea of governance through mayors, along with accompanying the development of blockchain technology and projects which have the potential to decentralize various governmental prerogatives and powers.
In that type of scenario, it is a win-win-win for the citizens of the “West”, for Ukraine and its citizens, and for citizens of Russia and all other countries ruled by similar autocrats. On the other hand, it would clearly be a lose-lose-lose for all the current people in power.
In any event, in a century or so, this war will be remembered as a pathetic attempt of the current power structures to maintain an unnatural status quo, preventing or delaying the inevitable evolutionary march of the universe, much like the Kings of the 18th century did everything they could to prevent the evolution towards representative democracy, which started with the American revolution, followed by the French one etc.
I’ll leave you with two citations:
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” Victor Hugo
And a Czech proverb: “when two are fighting, the third one laughs.”
(In Czech: “Když se dva perou, třetí se směje.”)
